lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

Yes, but we are all people, and I see no difference in people between you and us.

Might I remind everyone that guns are not banned in Australia. If I wanted to I could get a gun. The difference is that we are only able to get certain types of guns. No automatic or semiautomatic guns, no assault type guns. These are the ones used by people who commit massacres on the whole. The Port Arthur massacre was committed with a semiautomatic rifle. Since then they were banned except for particular circumstances. Guns must also be kept locked away in separate safes to the ammunition and the bolts. The Port Arthur massacre was committed by a guy who walked into a house and got the guns and stuff he wanted. If he couldn't have gotten it he couldn't have done all that he did.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

According to the reports I've read, Australia's crime rate has RISEN since their politicians have taken an anti-gun position, and they don't understand why.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Then why does the US News poll show a 97-3 vote in favor of gun ownership?

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

"That was then, this is now" is another way politicians and judges trample on the constitution.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Don't leave out the scissors, screwdrivers and hammers.

Gnslngr

First of all there is a difference between guns and knives. Knives have purpose other than to kill or maim people; handguns do not. In the main no one wants to ban all weaponry - rifles and shotguns are not on the table. It is the handgun that, because it is easily concealed and carried, quick to use and fire, and extremely easily portable, is the preference of the criminal. In major urban areas, this causes a huge problem as it makes murder an easy and thoughtless act. When you can conceal your weapon of murder in your front pocket in a crowd of people, if your purpose is nefarious there will be trouble afoot. And in a major population center that makes handguns a terrorist's dream.

In almost every single Northern urban center, the population wishes to ban HANDGUNS. Not rifles, not shotguns - just handguns. They vote democratically and overwhelmingly choose to ban handguns where they live. The second amendment, which speaks to an almost unfettered right to "arms" still allows us to ban machine guns. What is the problem with banning handguns where they have been shown to be a danger? There is none. For the most part, you could still own enough firepower to start an army. You just couldn't have a small, easily concealed weapon that's only good at close range anyhow in a major urban area.

It is also well worth saying that the right to bear arms is tied to keeping a viable militia. This is to keep government in check, so that tyranny is not allowed to flourish. A handgun (or even a rifle or shotgun) won't do that militia much good in today's world. Without serious weaponry (missile launchers, nuclear weapons, etc.) we wouldn't stand a chance against the army of a dictator.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Perhaps our worst massacre, Va. Tech, was accomplished with two handguns, one of them a .22 Smith and Wesson. Albeit they were probably semi-automatic. However, one thing about an armed America, for all the consequences we must bear. We will never become Syria.

dtcracer

After following the news story I have learned the suspect killed only one person. The other victims were injured by gunfire from the gunfight when the suspect pulled his gun from his briefcase on the police officers. The injuries were from debris from the bullets, not actual bullets.

dtcracer

As a former officer I have seen many officers that fall into that category. I have seen officers that could barely shoot straight, and exhibited poor firearm safety. These are the officers that shoot their sidearams only once or twice a year at qualification time. Its actually pretty scary that some officers carry guns.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Hey Doc ..... I'm disturbed by the video and I've watch it over a dozen times ..... from what I see and there is no sound, but from what I see it appears that the cops said, yelled, or did something vocal to get the perps attention ..... the perp is walking and as the cops enter the screen they abruptly stop and then the perp turns around.....

For the 5 seconds you first see the perp walking he doesn't look back even once ..... not until the cops get close and stop ..... looks to me like the only reason the perp stopped was because of something he heard .....

Of course the perp committed murder, and we don't exactly know how much info the cops had at that point, and how much of it was actually offically verified ..... but from what I see in the video it looks like the cops could have continued running and just tackled the perp .....

Now I know I'm gonna get a lot of slack from this but cops are peace officers and like I said I don't know what info those cops had.

The guy was barely moving when the cops were firing ..... one cops fired 9 times and the other 7 ..... we don't know how many times the perp was even hit ..... but he never fired once at the cops .....

We know that the perp shot and killed an individual that he was having an on going dispute with ..... if the perp managed to get into the building would there have been more than one target?

Would he have gone after anyone else inside the building?

Is it possible that when the police approached the perps final destination the perp turned expecting to see one or more of the other intended workers he wanted to kill .....

Watch the video again ..... the perp is actually hit before he moves to his right as he's facing the cops ..... when it appears that he's hit and falls you're watching over kill shots not the first hits ..... he is first hit when he is almost behind that tree .....

handgunner Loc: Windsor Locks, Connecticut

Was the Perp going into the building for more victims? We will never know.
As for not getting off a shot when confronted by the police,he may not have wanted to. He did not get any kind fof shooting stance or properly bring up his gun for any kind of sight picture. He pointed it at them from the hip. He knew he was either going to jail for the rest of his life of be killed. To me it looks to me like it was "Suicide by Cop".
As the former officer previously stated that some officers do not have enough training, I also agree. They must be aware of their background and account for all shots fired so that no civilians are hit. You are not supposed to sacrifice a few for the sake the many. Training is only part of it.
I did some research on the firearms the NYCPD can use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department
Scroll down to: Firearms. All pistols must be altered to a 12 pound trigger pull. Twelve pounds! That is like doing curls with a bag full of groceries with youe index finger.Then there is the isssue of over travel after the hammer releases. It goes from twelve to zero until the trigger hits the back of the triggger guard. In the shooting world we call them lawyer triggers. Four pounds is more than plenty. Accuracy through abundance is not the answer.
The outcome of this whole mess could have a lot worse. To me it looks like some of the cops were shooting because the rest of them were?
The original video was more than likely taken by the police as evidence. By the time we see it on TV or your computer, it has been copied so many times most of the resolution is lost. Of the surveillence video cameras I have seen. The resolution is beyond comparison. There are obviously other cameras in the area. That is only simple logic. The police let us see only what they wanted us to see.

lachmap Loc: Sydney Australia

So can you cite these 'reports'? I live here and have never heard this.